C
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
ahs’ response may offer some good insight to your question:
Conflating the notion of ‘aging’ with the notion of ‘death’ seems problematic here. It doesn’t necessarily follow that, in a world without physical death, there is no such thing as aging…
But, to add to her response: I think I would say that you’re being overly presumptuous: who’s saying that sin “made the world what it is”??? Sin entered the world, and altered it, but it’s a matter of speculation to presume that our human bodies were intended to be eternal! (After all, the dormition of Mary offers an interesting notion: what if we were all supposed to live a good long while until our bodies aged, and then passed from human bodies to glorified bodies, without suffering death?)
B
brb3
Guest
It would seem that of necessity, God had to endow certain great saints with superordinary graces …to enable & accomplish his will/plans. A predestination of persons & events.
Take John the Baptizer, Mary, and Paul …all were clearly endowed & chosen for their missions. Also the apostles & even Judas too !
Paul saw it…and taught predestination ! So, the ultimate conundrum is Free Will vs. Predestination !
A
ahs
Guest
I don’t suppose anyone will claim that Christ was not free from the stain of original sin and therefore subject to aging?
Yep.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Lets go back to Maximus the Confessor.
preachersinstitute.com/2011/12/13/why-jesus-had-to-be-virgin-born-st-maximus-the-confessor-explains/
Here we see the understanding laid out for the very human, and very divine nature of Christ. Yet we need to think past this now to Mary. Mary fits, but where does Mary fit with pleasure/pain? Here resides the contrast of Eve and Mary. Marys pleasure was Her pain and correctly understood before the Incarnation. Here we find a square peg which doesn’t fit in a round hole.
I tend to agree with brb3 that the Annunciation rules out that option. That was predestined.
CTG did you read Life of the Virgin?
preachersinstitute.com/2011/12/13/why-jesus-had-to-be-virgin-born-st-maximus-the-confessor-explains/
Here we see the understanding laid out for the very human, and very divine nature of Christ. Yet we need to think past this now to Mary. Mary fits, but where does Mary fit with pleasure/pain? Here resides the contrast of Eve and Mary. Marys pleasure was Her pain and correctly understood before the Incarnation. Here we find a square peg which doesn’t fit in a round hole.
I tend to agree with brb3 that the Annunciation rules out that option. That was predestined.
CTG did you read Life of the Virgin?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
But Mary did suffer death. The notion that she did not die is a modern innovation. For the greater part of the Church’s history, there was without a question that Mary did pass from this live before being resurrected by Christ and assumed into heaven body and soul.
Also it was the common consensus among the early Fathers that death is the result of Adam’s sin. As Genesis clearly stated, Adam and Eve will only die if they eat from the tree of knowledge, which they did. If they were to die anyway without having to partake of the fruit of the tree, why did God warn them that way? God surely does not deceive.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I don’t see how the link fits into the discussion It discusses Christ’s own conception and why the Virgin conception and birth was necessary. It does not discuss why Mary had to be immaculately conceieved. And you will notice the one time “immaculate conception” was mentioned in that article, it was referring to Christ, not Mary.
C
Cranch
Guest
I believe the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is more than an image in the mind but perhaps I am misunderstanding your formula of Eucharist = remembrance = image in the mind.
As to the topic at hand, I wonder if you believe that Mary, just as any other human, required redemption through the merits of Jesus Christ, and this was granted her in a way unique among all humans. She was thus preserved from original sin. If you do not believe this, we will not come to a mutual understanding of the nature of the Immaculate Conception.
And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.—Luke 1:46–47
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Its not in the discussion, I added it to the discussion since the elaboration doesn’t fit with Marys reality. Here watch…
"St. Maximus says that God the Word who created man’s nature, made it without pleasure and pain.
“He did not make the senses susceptible to either pleasure or pain.”
He insists on this point by saying:
“Pleasure and pain were not created simultaneously with the flesh.”
While there was no pleasure and pain in man before the fall, there was a noetic faculty towards pleasure, through which man could enjoy God ineffably. But he misused this natural faculty. Man oriented the
“the natural longing of the nous for God”
[Again we have no reason to believe Biblically Mary is subjected to this point by Scripture. And when we refer to man, than we assume all including the Mother of God? A stretch historically and biblically. This relies on “probability” not fact and ignores “possibility” in Gods realm. And further we would have to admit the Nous is different with Mary]
to sensible things and thus “by the initial movement towards sensible things, the first man transferred this longing to his senses, and through them began to experience this pleasure in a way contrary to nature”. The words “according to nature” and “contrary to nature” show the complete ontological change that took place in man and depict his fallen state clearly.
[This here you do not read in Scripture with Mary, nor is a word spoken in history about this. In what way was Mary contrary to Gods will? In other words ‘where’ do we see clearly Marys fallen state?]
Of course, man did not invent this mode of operation of the faculties of the soul on his own, but with the advice of the devil. The devil was motivated by jealously against man, for whom God had shown special care and attention. It is interesting that the devil envied not only man but God Himself:
[Again the statement extends to Mary which we do not know Biblically or Historically]
“Since the devil is jealous of both us and god, he persuaded man by guile that God was jealous of him, and so made him break the commandment”.
[What commandment did Mary break?]
While the article is interesting as I said you have square peg and round hole.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hi,
Like this part:
As Christ is baptized in the Jordan, it is not Christ who is being sanctified by baptism, it is Christ sanctifying creation through his baptism. When Christ went into the water, the water then became a vessel of God’s sanctifying grace throughout the world and thus all of creation is redeemed.
However Jesus taking on Man’s fallen nature? Hmm that would make it less likely to call him a second Adam.
So at what point does Jesus make this happen? When Christ is on the Cross and takes on the sin of the world, He cries out to the Father in heaven, Why have you forsaken me? And it is said, even if the Father had only for an instant turned away, it was extremely painful for Christ.
Got to read some St. Maximos
God bless,
john
B
brb3
Guest
The cross was fully agonizing for Christ…both mental & physical …and indeed Christ’s words of agony suggest the Father had briefly departed from him. Our human minds can’t comprehend this separation of the Trinity …but, scripture implys it occurred.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hi,
What?
Adam and Eve not subjected to time? Even though they were not in Sin in the,
Garden, they were subjected to time. Only God in eternity does not change, Jesus incarnate is subjected to time. He ages, he gets hungry, he hurts.
Mary a descendant of David, is Human. Adam and Eve human, Christ Human and divine.
Now in Mary’s assumption, the Church does not State she died physically and then assumed in heaven, or that at the moment of death was assumed into heaven.
And that argument has never been used toward anyone else in history.
God bless,
John
J
jedicri
Guest
That is wrong. It is not that Scripture implies it, rather, it is you that imply this error either due to your misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of what constituted God the Father “forsaking” His Son; and/or a lack of knowledge of the Trinity from the theological point of view.
There has, and never will be a separation of the Trinity. That goes against God’s very essence, the life of God as it were.
B
brb3
Guest
Then you tell us what Christ meant with words " My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me ?"
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hello Constantine TG
Maybe you have human will mixed up w/sin in Jesus becoming incarnate,
From about 640 on, he became the determined opponent of Monothelitism, the heretical teaching that Jesus Christ had only one will. In this, he followed the example of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, who was the first to combat this heresy starting in 634.
Maximus supported the Orthodoxy of Rome on this matter and is said to have exclaimed: "I have the faith of the Latins, but the language of the Greeks." He argued for Dyothelitism, the Orthodox teaching that Jesus Christ possessed two wills (one divine and one human), rather than the one will posited by Monothelitism.
God bless,
JOHN
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
He was quoting Psalm 22/21
Unto the end, for the morning protection, a psalm for David. [2] O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins. [3] O my God, I shall cry by day, and thou wilt not hear: and by night, and it shall not be reputed as folly in me. [4] But thou dwellest in the holy place, the praise of Israel. [5] In thee have our fathers hoped: they have hoped, and thou hast delivered them.
[2] The words of my sins: That is, the sins of the world, which I have taken upon myself, cry out against me, and are the cause of all my sufferings.
[6] They cried to thee, and they were saved: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. [7] But I am a worm, and no man: the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people. [8] All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head. [9] He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him: let him save him, seeing he delighteth in him. [10] For thou art he that hast drawn me out of the womb: my hope from the breasts of my mother.
[11] I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother’s womb thou art my God, [12] Depart not from me. For tribulation is very near: for there is none to help me. [13] Many calves have surrounded me: fat bulls have besieged me. [14] They have opened their mouths against me, as a lion ravening and roaring. [15] I am poured out like water; and all my bones are scattered. My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels.
[16] My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death. [17] For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet. [18] They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. [19] They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. [20] But thou, O Lord, remove not thy help to a distance from me; look towards my defence.
[21] Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword: my only one from the hand of the dog. [22] Save me from the lion’s mouth; and my lowness from the horns of the unicorns. [23] I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise thee. [24] Ye that fear the Lord, praise him: all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him. [25] Let all the seed of Israel fear him: because he hath not slighted nor despised the supplication of the poor man. Neither hath he turned away his face from me: and when I cried to him he heard me.
[26] With thee is my praise in a great church: I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear him. [27] The poor shall eat and shall be filled: and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their hearts shall live for ever and ever. [28] All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord: And all the kindreds of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight. [29] For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he shall have dominion over the nations. [30] All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored: all they that go down to the earth shall fall before him. [31] And to him my soul shall live: and my seed shall serve him. [32] There shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come: and the heavens shall shew forth his justice to a people that shall be born, which the Lord hath made.
.
B
brb3
Guest
yes, and verse one continues on …"Why art thou SO FAR FROM HELPING ME, from the words of my groaning ?
Then verse 2 continues …“O MY GOD, I CRY BY DAY, BUT THOU DOST NOT ANSWER; …”
This is the ‘Psalm of Anguish’ …David’s cry yes, but Christ also shares David’s anguish and forsakenness …
J
jedicri
Guest
Here is one interpretation that is not contrary to Catholic teaching and doctrine. It is taken from Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda, Volume III, Chapter XXII
Take it as you will. I will furnish other interpretations at a later time.
“Already the ninth hour of the day was approaching, although the darkness and confusion of nature made it appear to be rather a chaotic night. Our Savior spoke the fourth word from the Cross in a loud and strong voice, so that all the bystanders could hear it : “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” (Matth. 27, 46.) Although the Lord had uttered these words in his own Hebrew language, they were not understood by all. Since they began with : “Eli, eli,” some of them thought He was calling upon Elias, and a number of them mocked Him saying: “Let us see whether Elias shall come to free Him from our hands ?” But the mystery concealed beneath these words was just as profound as it was unintelligible to the Jews and gentiles ; and they have been interpreted in many ways by the doctors of the Church. I shall give the interpretation which has been manifested to me. The dereliction of which Christ speaks, was not one in which the Divinity separated from the humanity, dissolving the hypostatic union, nor including a cessation of the beatific vision in his soul ; for both of these He enjoyed from the first moment of his conception by the Holy Ghost in the virginal womb and could never lose. But certainly the sacred humanity was in so far forsaken by the Divinity as it did not ward off death or the most bitter sorrows of his Passion; though, on the other hand, the eternal Father did not forsake Him entirely, since He showed his concern by causing the changes in the visible creation in order to give witness for his honor at his Death. Christ our Savior intimated quite a different dereliction by these words of complaint, one which originated from his immense love for men; namely, from his love of the foreknown as lost and the reprobate, which during his last hour caused in Him the same anguish as it did during his prayer in the garden. He grieved that his copious and superabundant Redemption, offered for the whole human race, should not be efficacious in the reprobate and that He should find Him self deprived of them in the eternal happiness, for which He had created and redeemed them. As this was to happen in consequence of the decree of his Father s eternal will, He lovingly and sorrowfully complained of it in the words: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” that is, in so far as God deprived Him of the salvation of the reprobate.”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Actually, it does. Take note that Easter/Pascha is called “The 8th Day”. The Resurrection is called “the new creation”. Why? Did God create a new man out of dirt? No. God simply could have created a new man out of dirt and free from sin, but that would have annihilated our race. And God is not a god of destruction. So Jesus Christ made things new. And how does He do this? By taking our current nature unto Himself and renewing it through the hypostatic union of His divinity with the humanity he shares with us through Mary. See, we inherit the effects of Adam’s sin because we are Adam’s physical descendants. Jesus Christ obviously did not have physical children to intermarry with our race for the renewed flesh he created to become part of us. So the only way for our own flesh to be saved is for Christ to take our entire human nature unto himself and renew it within himself. If he takes a flesh other than our flesh, that is one that is unstained like Adam, then how does He cleanse our flesh? But don’t confuse this statement to say that Christ is at any point stained. That is why I said, God is pure and all-holy. The moment He took our flesh, it was instantly and completely perfected. But He had to take our flesh, the one we inherited from Adam.
There is no one point that this happens, rather it happens throughout the life of Christ. From the incarnation to the passion to the resurrection. It is a process. Fr. John Behr, dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary, had a talk that I attended. He was talking about this. He said, notice that in Genesis when God was creating, everything was created instantly. Let there be this, let there be that, and everything came into existence. But with man He didn’t do that. He did not say, “let there be man,” and man came into existence. Instead, God did work. He took clay and shaped and formed man and breathed life into man. Even as Adam and Eve walked around the garden, God was not finished with man. The completion of the creation of man came with Jesus Christ. When he took our flesh and he lived as a man and suffered and died as a man. Why do you think he cried out on the cross, “It is finished.” What is finished? Fr. John believes Jesus, the Creator, has completed the creation of man. Fr. John by the way is an expert on Patristics in the first 5 centuries.
I have read very little of him, but one point he made that is a big piece for the Sixth Ecumenical Council is that he taught that what is assumed by Christ is what is saved. The question in the 6th Council was whether Christ has a human will or only a divine will. St. Maximos said that everything a human being has, Christ has. Because if he did not assume one aspect of humanity, then that aspect is not saved. So if Christ did not have a human will, our own human wills is not saved. And you can say that it is a package deal, you can’t have humanity lacking. So if anything is left out then we are not saved at all. That is why it is important to believe and understand that Christ assumed the post-Fall humanity.
I never said they were not subject to time. I said they were not subject to death. Christ ate after His resurrection. There is no reason to believe that Adam and Eve did not age or anything. We don’t know if they were immortal, but for sure they were not subject to sin and death until after the fall.
- Status